OSHA Inspection: ENNIS-FLINT

Issued

Sep 25, 2012

Abate by

Nov 30, 2012

Penalty

Initial $5,000 · Current $3,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(6)(i):  The employer did not conduct a periodic inspection of the energy control procedure at least annually to ensure that the procedure and the requirement of this standard were being followed.    a) Facility Wide - The employer did not conduct a periodic inspection of the energy control procedure at least annually to ensure that the procedures and requirements were followed during service work on equipment such as, Automation machines, Manual welder machines, Injection molding machines, and the Tapping machines

Issued

Sep 25, 2012

Abate by

Oct 24, 2012

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $4,200 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(d)(3):  All energy isolating devices that were needed to control the energy to the machine or equipment were not physically located and operated in such a manner as to isolate the machine or equipment from the energy source(s).    a) Automation Area - The employer did not ensure that all energy isolating devices were located and operated in a manner as to isolate the energy source while employees removed stuck parts from equipment such as, the Prosys automation machine #102.

Issued

Sep 25, 2012

Abate by

Oct 24, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(d)(4)(i):  Lockout or tagout devices were not affixed to each energy isolating device by authorized employees.    a) Automation Area - Lockout or tagout devices were not affixed to each energy isolating device by authorized employees while employees removed stuck parts from equipment such as, the Prosys automation machine #102.

Issued

Sep 25, 2012

Abate by

Oct 17, 2012

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $4,800 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.212(a)(1):  One or more methods of machine guarding was not provided to protect the operator and other employees in the machine area from hazards such as those created by point of operation, ingoing nip points, rotating parts, flying chips and sparks:    a) Automation Area - The employer did not provide one or more methods of machine guarding that would protect employees from the point of operation, and rotating parts, on equipment, such as the Prosys automation machine #102.    b) Machine Shop - The employer did not ensure the point of operation was adequately guarded on equipment such as the Dewalt Chop Saw SN#113275.  The Employees were not adequately protected from rotating parts, flying chips and sparks on equipment, such as the Dewalt Chop Saw SN#113275.  The original mechanism that held the guard in place was broken, and the guard was tied back by a piece of wire.    c) Machine Shop - The employer did not provide one or more methods of machine guarding that would protect employees from the point of operation, rotating parts, flying chips and sparks on equipment, such as the Dewalt Chop Saw SN#113275.    d) Machine Shop - The employer did not provide one or more methods of machine guarding that would protect employees from the point of operation, rotating parts, flying chips and sparks on equipment, such as the Dayton Drill Press, SN# ZH.      e) Machine Shop - The employer did not provide the belt sanding machine with guards at each nip point where the sanding belt runs on to a pulley on equipment, such as the Baldor Sander SN# W498.    f) Machine Shop - The employer did not provide one or more methods of machine guarding that would protect employees from the point of operation, rotating parts, flying chips and sparks on equipment, such as the Bridgeport vertical milling machine ID #290333.    g) Machine Shop - The employer did not provide one or more methods of machine guarding that would protect employees from the point of operation, rotating parts, flying chips and sparks on equipment, such as the Bridgeport vertical milling machine ID #J181986.

Issued

Sep 25, 2012

Penalty

Initial $5,000 · Current $3,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.215(b)(9):  The distance between the abrasive wheel periphery(s) and the adjustable tongue or the end of the safety guard peripheral member at the top exceeded one fourth inch.    a) Machine Shop - The employer did not ensure that all abrasive wheel machinery when equipped with a tongue guard had a distance of no more than one-fourth inch between the tongue guard and the abrasive wheel on equipment, such as the Baldor Grinder SN # P199.

Issued

Sep 25, 2012

Abate by

Oct 17, 2012

Penalty

Initial $5,000 · Current $3,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.219(d)(1):  Pulley(s) with part(s) seven feet or less from the floor or work platform were not guarded in accordance with the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.219(m) and (o).    a) The employer did not ensure that the pulleys were fully enclosed by a guard on equipment, such as the Prosys automation machine #101.    b) The employer did not ensure that the pulleys were fully enclosed by a guard on equipment, such as the Prosys automation machine #102.

Issued

Sep 25, 2012

Abate by

Oct 17, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.219(e)(3)(i):  Vertical or inclined belt(s) were not enclosed by guard(s) conforming to the requirements specified at 29 CFR 1910.219(m) and (o).    a) Automation Area - The employer did not ensure that the belts were fully enclosed by a guard on equipment, such as the Prosys automation machine #101.    b)Automation Area - The employer did not ensure that the belts were fully enclosed by a guard on equipment, such as the Prosys automation machine #102

Issued

Sep 25, 2012

Abate by

Oct 17, 2012

Penalty

Initial $1,000 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.133(a)(1):  The employer did not ensure that each affected employee uses appropriate eye or face protection when exposed to eye or face hazards from flying particles, molten metal, liquid chemicals, acids or caustic liquids, chemical gases or vapors, or potentially injurious light radiation.    a) Glassing Line - Glassing Line - The employer did not require the use of appropriate eye and face protection such as splash proof goggles to protect against chemical exposure to the eyes when pouring LORD U103 UV coating cure into a waste holding container.